Talk:Puss in Boots: The Last Wish/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 00:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning to review this article for GA over the coming days. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Just an update that I have looked through the article and I definitely have some feedback that I think should be addressed before this one is promoted to GA. Hopefully it won't be much longer before I can get all my thoughts down for you. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Feedback for things that I think need to be addressed listed below. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Issues

 * I think the lead is too big for the size of the article, particularly the first paragraph. You probably don't need to include all of the side characters and sub plots in the lead's short summary of the plot. Also, the fact that the film is set after Shrek Forever After and Wheeler writing the last film and contribution to the story for this one are both not mentioned in the article and should probably be removed.
 * "eponymous fairy tale" seems incorrect, the fairy tale is not called "Puss in Boots: The Last Wish". I would also generally expect any "based on" credits in the lead to match both the film and the infobox.
 * Generally if a film is nominated for an Oscar that is all you really need to mention in the lead. That last sentence should probably say something more like "The film received numerous awards and nominations, including a nomination for Best Animated Feature at the 95th Academy Awards"
 * The plot summary should introduce what the Wishing Star is, it just starts talking about it without telling the reader what it means and why they are all after it.
 * The links to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Shrek (franchise) in the plot summary are both WP:EGG links. Unless there is more specific links to the magic snacks or the Kingdom of Far Far Away they should be removed. Generally we handle situations like the Far Far Away link by adding a footnote that explains what it is.
 * The voice cast section is inconsistently formatted, some use commas after the character name and some use dashes. There is also a bunch of unsourced details (even some of the character entries that are sourced feature details not supported by the sources provided).
 * My biggest problem with the article is the Production section, which is not really big enough and puts the whole review in danger of being failed for the coverage not being broad enough. Since I think the rest of the article is close enough to warrant a full review, I have decided to give you a chance to expand this section but I do think it needs a good bit of work before it can reach GA status. I'm certain some research can be done to expand the casting and animation information to get a productions section that is more balanced with the size of the rest of the article.
 * The analysis section is not big enough to justify its existence, and its content should fit well in the critical response section anyway.
 * The Music section has unsourced information.
 * There should not be a single sentence paragraph in the Home Media section. That section also has unsourced details, and should explain what The Adventures of Puss in Boots is to the reader.
 * "By March 2023, it ultimately became a sleeper hit" can probably be more appropriately worded, something like "By March 2023, it was considered by XX to be a sleeper hit"
 * There aren't many reviews in the critical response section (out of the 190 that are on RT) and there is a reliance on long quotes. You should review the guidelines at MOS:FILMCRITICS and attempt to include more reviews with less quotes that are grouped by topic. You should also review the possible copyright violations with WP:EARWIG and make sure the only ones left are unavoidable (like the one that is picking up the cast list).
 * The external link to PETA's website in the accolades table should be removed. If it has additional information on the award that is useful to readers then it can be formatted as an additional reference at the end of the row instead, or those details can be included in a foot note with that website as a reference for the contents of the note.
 * One of the references has an error, one uses all capital letters which should be fixed, some of the web references do not have archives, and there is inconsistency with the website names and links.
 * You use "Puss'" throughout the article, this should be "Puss's" as the s is included after the apostrophe for singular nouns even if they end with an s already.
 * If you are able to expand the article as I have asked above, I think it will be at a level where an additional image would be desirable. You may want to look at non-free options for something that could go in the Release or Reception sections.
 * Pinging since you have been contributing regularly but this has been dormant for weeks. Since you are the nominator, you are currently expected to work on improving this article. (Personally, I would have just removed it for being a drive-by nomination though - you only added a single negative review to the article in terms of actual content). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, this one slipped me by. I'm away for the weekend but will get on it when I get back. Thanks for the nudge Lankyant (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Lankyant, sorry for my absence lately. Just wanted to know if you think this will be ready in the near future? Otherwise I will look to fail the review for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In case you did not get the notification. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to fail this one. My notes are above for editors to refer to before the article is re-nominated. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)